Reassessment notice limitation and valid service must be proved; failure to establish both vitiates reopening.

For a valid reassessment under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, the Revenue must prove that the notice under section 148 was issued within the limitation period under section 149 and was duly served in law. In this matter, inconsistent postal tracking material and conflicting departmental dates failed to establish timely issuance, and valid service by affixture was also not proved. As a result, the jurisdictional basis for reopening was not satisfied and the reassessment was quashed as invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice under section 148 was issued within limitation and validly served so as to confer jurisdiction for reassessment under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the Revenue had satisfactorily proved timely issuance of the reassessment notice and its due service. The record showed inconsistent dates in the postal tracking material and the departmental version on when the notice was dispatched. The assessee also disputed the validity of service by affixture and asserted that the Revenue had not discharged the burden of proving that the notice was issued within the period prescribed under section 149. In these circumstances, the jurisdictional foundation for reopening had to be established strictly, and any failure to prove timely issuance and valid service would vitiate the reassessment.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148 was held to be time-barred and not duly established as served in law, so the reassessment proceedings were invalid and the assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional challenge.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment was quashed on the ground that the mandatory statutory requirements for valid reopening were not proved.

Ratio Decidendi: For a valid reassessment, the Revenue must prove timely issuance of the notice within the limitation period and compliance with the statutory requirements of service; failure to do so deprives the reassessment of jurisdictional validity.

---